IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No. 346 of 2011.

Decided on: May 24, 2012.

H.P. State Forest Development Corporation through its Managing Director, SDA Complex, Shimla-9.

…Appellant.

Versus

1. Smt. Bimla Sood, widow of Sh. Om Prakash Sood, R/O House No. 338-C, Civil Bazar, Dharamsala, H.P.

..Respondent/petitioner.

• 2. State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2.
• 3. The Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla-171002.

…Respondents.

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

CMP(M) 1145 of 2011.

Heard. Allowed.

LPA No. 346 of 2011.

The respondent - Corporation has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.1.2011 in CWP No.4998 of 2010. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, in terms of the judgment dated 16.11.2010, in CWP (T) No. 6604 of 2008. The issue pertains to the Scheme made by the respondents for grant of pension under the H.P. Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999. The writ petitioner had superannuated on 30.11.2004. The retirement benefits were disbursed to her only in the year 2008. It is not in dispute that during the period 1999 to 2004, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in R.K.Soni v. State of H.P. and others, (CWP (T) No. 2530 of 2008), the Scheme was implemented in the cases of all those who retired during that period. The writ petitioner is covered, in principle, in that view of the matter, but the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that having received the other eligible benefits, otherwise on normal superannuation, the writ petitioner cannot now turn around and ask for the pension Scheme. But the fact remains that the pension Scheme was implemented only pursuant to the judgment of this Court in R.K.Soni's case, rendered in the year 2009, in respect of the employees retired during the period, indicated above. In fact, in the judgment dated 8.5.2012 rendered in LPA 724 of 2011, we have adverted to this aspect. Therefore, for the only reason that the writ petitioner had received the benefits on superannuation, which apparently have been paid after 4 years of superannuation, the otherwise eligible benefits under the Pension Scheme cannot be denied. No doubt, there cannot be double benefits. The entire benefits under the EPF Scheme received in the year 2008, shall be refunded by the writ petitioner and thereafter, the case of the writ petitioner will be processed by the appellant Corporation and appropriate action, without discriminating the writ petitioner, will be taken within two months from the date of the refund, as above.

2. Subject to the above clarification, appeal is dismissed, and so also the pending application(s), if any.

(Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice.

May 24, 012. (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary) (ss/pc) Judge.